The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect
, S. P. Abney 1987
This dissertation is a defense of the hypothesis that the noun phrase is headed by a functional element (i.e., “non-lexical” category) D, identified with the determiner. In this way, the structure of the noun phrase parallels that of the sentence, which is headed by Infl(ection), under assumptions now standard within the Government–Binding (GB) framework.
The central empirical problem addressed is the question of the proper analysis of the so-called “Poss-ing” gerund in English. This construction possesses simultaneously many properties of sentences, and many properties of noun phrases. The problem of capturing this dual aspect of the Poss-ing construction is heightened by current restrictive views of X-bar theory, which, in particular, rule out the obvious structure for Poss-ing, [NP NP VPing], by virtue of its exocentricity.
Consideration of languages in which nouns, even the most basic concrete nouns, show agreement (AGR) with their possessors points to an analysis of the noun phrase as headed by an element similar to Infl, which provides a position for AGR; I call this Infl-like element “d.” D and Infl belong to the class of non-lexical categories, which I prefer to call functional categories. The analysis in which D heads the noun phrase I call the “DP analysis.”
Importing the DP analysis into English yields an immediate solution for the problem of the Poss-ing gerund: Poss-ing gerunds (and by extension, noun phrases generally) have a more sentence-like structure than hitherto thought, namely, [DP DP’s D VPing]. (In non-gerundive noun phrases, “VP” is replaced by a projection of N. This projection of N, despite being a maximal X-bar projection, corresponds to N-bar in the standard analysis.)
Current trends in the treatment of minor categories—so-called “non-lexical” categories—lead us to a similar conclusion. Until recently, minor categories like complementizers and modals had been treated as syncategorematic. Under current assumptions, however, they participate fully in the X-bar schema. In this way, two simplifications are achieved simultaneously: we eliminate syncategorematic elements, and we acquire endocentric analysis of the sentence, which had been exceptional in being the only exocentric major category. To make these results fully general, we are led to treat the remaining syncategorematic elements—in particular, determiners in noun phrases and degree words in adjective phrases—as heads of full phrases. The analogy with complementizers and modals indicates that determiners and degree words should head noun phrases and adjective phrases, respectively. In other words, determiners are lexical instantiations of “D” in the same way that modals are lexical instantiations of Infl.
However, despite the conceptual links, the question of the existence of a functional head of the noun phrase (the DP analysis), and the question of the place of the determiner, are independent questions, and I treat them separately: Chapters One through Three are concerned predominately with the former question, Chapter Four with the latter.
Chapter One provides a brief introduction. In Chapter Two I present the DP analysis, motivating it by examining languages with agreement between noun and possessor. I also discuss issues raised by the DP analysis, with emphasis on the parallelism between noun phrase and sentence hypothesized under the DP analysis. In particular, I treat the question of PRO in noun phrase; and I show that the numerous differences between sentence and noun phrase do not invalidate the parallelism of structure proposed under the DP analysis. In Chapter Three I apply the analysis to the three gerundive constructions, Acc-ing, Poss-ing, and -ing of. Finally, in Chapter Four, I turn to the question of whether the determiner is the lexical instantiation of D, the functional head of the noun phrase.
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Richard K. Larson, Assistant Professor of Linguistics
1 | Introduction | 14 | ||
1.1 | A puzzle and its solution | 14 | ||
1.1.1 | The puzzle | 14 | ||
1.1.2 | An apparently unrelated fact | 17 | ||
1.1.3 | The solution | 21 | ||
1.1.4 | The identity of X | 23 | ||
1.1.5 | Sentence and noun phrase | 25 | ||
1.2 | Overview | 28 | ||
2 | Noun phrase and sentence | 30 | ||
2.1 | General similarities | 30 | ||
2.2 | Infl in the noun phrase | 37 | ||
2.2.1 | Yup’ik | 39 | ||
2.2.2 | Mayan | 42 | ||
2.2.3 | Hungarian | 44 | ||
2.2.4 | Digression: Comp in the noun phrase | 46 | ||
2.2.5 | Turkish | 49 | ||
2.3 | The DP analysis | 54 | ||
2.3.1 | Concepts and terminology | 54 | ||
a. | “Inflectional” elements | 54 | ||
b. | C-projection and S-projection | 57 | ||
c. | “D” vs. “Det” | 58 | ||
d. | Syntactic features | 60 | ||
2.3.2 | Functional selection | 63 | ||
2.3.3 | Two notions of command | 68 | ||
2.3.4 | Det as head | 71 | ||
2.3.5 | The position of ’s | 78 | ||
a. | Morphological Case affix | 78 | ||
b. | Determiner | 79 | ||
c. | Postposition: N Case-assigns | 79 | ||
d. | Postposition: AGR Case-assigns | 81 | ||
2.3.6 | Appendix: Selection of DP | 85 | ||
2.4 | PRO in the noun phrase | 89 | ||
2.4.1 | PRO book | 89 | ||
2.4.2 | θ-theory | 92 | ||
a. | Derived nominals | 92 | ||
b. | Rationale clauses | 93 | ||
2.4.3 | Control theory | 97 | ||
2.4.4 | Binding theory | 97 | ||
2.4.5 | Arguments against PRO in the noun phrase | 101 | ||
a. | Yesterday’s destruction | 101 | ||
b. | Obligatoriness of control | 103 | ||
2.5 | Differences between noun phrase and sentence | 107 | ||
2.5.1 | Predication in the noun phrase | 107 | ||
2.5.2 | Catalog of differences | 115 | ||
a. | A preliminary: process vs. result | 115 | ||
b. | Oligatoriness of subject | 121 | ||
c. | Pleonastics | 122 | ||
d. | Case | 122 | ||
e. | Restrictions on passive | 123 | ||
f. | Psych nouns | 125 | ||
g. | Raising | 129 | ||
h. | Exceptional Case Marking | 129 | ||
i. | Small clauses | 131 | ||
j. | Ditransitivity | 131 | ||
k. | Object control | 134 | ||
l. | Tough constructions | 135 | ||
m. | John’s breaking his leg | 139 | ||
n. | Pseudo-passive | 142 | ||
o. | Particles, particle movement | 143 | ||
p. | Resultative secondary predicates | 143 | ||
q. | Object pleonastics | 145 | ||
r. | Concealed questions | 146 | ||
s. | Indirect questions | 146 | ||
t. | Complementizer deletion | 147 | ||
2.5.3 | Appendix: reducing the differences | 149 | ||
3 | Gerunds | 165 | ||
3.1 | Introduction | 165 | ||
3.1.1 | The range of gerund constructions | 167 | ||
3.1.2 | Reuland’s analysis of Acc-ing | 168 | ||
3.2 | Noun phrase aspects of Poss-ing | 171 | ||
3.2.1 | External evidence | 171 | ||
a. | Distribution | 171 | ||
b. | Agreement | 175 | ||
c. | Long-distance binding | 175 | ||
3.2.2 | Internal evidence | 176 | ||
a. | Subject | 176 | ||
b. | Specificity | 178 | ||
c. | Pied piping | 179 | ||
d. | Scope | 179 | ||
e. | Sentential adverbs | 180 | ||
3.3 | Sentential aspects of Poss-ing | 182 | ||
3.3.1 | VP in Poss-ing | 182 | ||
3.3.2 | PRO in the gerund | 183 | ||
3.3.3 | “N-bar” deletion | 188 | ||
3.4 | Analyses I: finding the seam | 190 | ||
3.4.1 | Schachter | 190 | ||
3.4.2 | Horn | 192 | ||
3.4.3 | The D–VP analysis | 193 | ||
a. | -ing as functional head | 193 | ||
b. | Turkish again | 196 | ||
c. | ’s and determiners | 197 | ||
3.4.4 | The D–IP analysis | 199 | ||
a. | Determiners | 201 | ||
b. | The positions of -ing | 201 | ||
c. | Spanish el + infinitive | 202 | ||
d. | Scope of not | 203 | ||
e. | ’s as θ-assigner | 205 | ||
3.5 | Analyses II: the morphological angle | 210 | ||
3.5.1 | Jackendoff | 210 | ||
a. | The deverbal rule schema | 210 | ||
b. | The history of the English gerund | 211 | ||
c. | -ing of | 214 | ||
3.5.2 | Pesetsky/Lebeaux | 217 | ||
3.5.3 | Baker | 219 | ||
3.6 | Conclusion: Syntactic affixation | 222 | ||
3.6.1 | A final analysis | 222 | ||
a. | The “scope” of -ing | 222 | ||
b. | Acc-ing | 225 | ||
c. | Poss-ing | 228 | ||
d. | The site of -ing | 231 | ||
e. | Lowering -ing | 238 | ||
f. | Appendix: VP- and NP-deletion | 244 | ||
3.6.2 | Affixes in the syntax | 248 | ||
a. | The “new morphology” | 248 | ||
b. | Turkish gerunds and the Mirror Principle | 249 | ||
c. | Generalizing the Mirror Principle | 251 | ||
3.6.3 | Verbal and adjectival passive | 253 | ||
a. | Distribution | 254 | ||
b. | Internal evidence | 257 | ||
c. | A digression on Case absorption | 258 | ||
d. | More internal evidence | 262 | ||
4 | Lexical determiners | 265 | ||
4.1 | Determiners as head | 268 | ||
4.1.1 | Arguments for the standard analysis | 268 | ||
a. | Selectional restrictions | 268 | ||
b. | Determiners and possessors | 270 | ||
c. | Hungarian | 272 | ||
4.1.2 | Sundry evidence for Det as head | 277 | ||
a. | Dets that cannot stand alone | 277 | ||
b. | Dets that can stand alone | 278 | ||
c. | Pronouns | 281 | ||
d. | Dets as functional elements | 285 | ||
e. | Head-to-head movement | 285 | ||
4.1.3 | The range of specifiers | 287 | ||
a. | Two bars vs. three bars | 287 | ||
b. | Noun phrase specifiers | 290 | ||
c. | Pseudo-partitive | 295 | ||
4.2 | The adjective phrase | 298 | ||
4.2.1 | Deg as head | 298 | ||
4.2.2 | Adjective, adverb, and quantifier | 301 | ||
4.2.3 | The “subject” of Deg | 304 | ||
4.2.4 | Extent clauses | 312 | ||
4.2.5 | Two specifiers in adjective phrase | 315 | ||
4.2.6 | Overview of structures | 320 | ||
4.3 | The positions of prenominal adjectives | 322 | ||
4.3.1 | Two hypotheses | 322 | ||
4.3.2 | Adjective as head of NP | 323 | ||
a. | Too big a house | 323 | ||
b. | Complements | 326 | ||
c. | Mere and utter | 328 | ||
d. | Semantics | 328 | ||
e. | Comparatives | 331 | ||
f. | Determination of noun phrase type | 333 | ||
g. | Idioms | 334 | ||
4.3.3 | Two more hypotheses | 335 | ||
a. | AP vs. DegP | 335 | ||
b. | Quantifiers | 338 | ||
c. | Problems | 341 | ||
4.4 | Conclusion | 351 | ||
5 | Bibliography | 355 |